Hello Spud, Any feedback on how your simscan install faired with bill's toaster?
Thanks, Neil ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Maag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [toaster] simscan > spud, > Thanks for looking into this a little more....It sounds like an awesome > replacement to qmailscanner, and will certainly limit the queue filling > up from bounces to invalid domains, etc. > Peter > > a.h.s. boy (lists) wrote: > > > On Sep 29, 2004, at 7:24 PM, Bill Shupp wrote: > > > >> a.h.s. boy (lists) wrote: > >> > >>> So it sounds like you can just set the simscan rejection level very > >>> high, like 30, and it will only reject the mail over that threshold. > >>> If SpamAssassin's own "threshold" setting can be different (like 7), > >>> then SA will still mark the mail as Spam, and simscan will allow it > >>> to pass through. > >> > >> > >> > >> That's how I read it. I plan to test simscan soon. Right now it's > >> failing, and strace is not helping, but I have not tested it much > >> yet. I'll report back when I have. > > > > > > I got a response from Ken Jones. Sounds like we have it right: > > > > With spamassassin enabled --enable-spam the email is passed through > > spamassassin with all it's associated headers. If the email is marked as > > spam then it is rejected. All other emails pass through with the > > spamassassin > > headers intact. > > > > With --enable-spam-hits=number then only email above this hit count is > > rejected. All other email is passed through including email marked as > > spam. > > The idea was to only reject really bad spam and let the user filter > > the rest. > > > > Cheers, > > spud. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > a.h.s. boy > > spud(at)nothingness.org "as yes is to if,love is to yes" > > http://www.nothingness.org/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >
